The Stoke-On-Trent South MP, who sits on the Transport Select Committee (pictured below looking like kind of a fatty, probably why he doesn’t like cycling), came out with the bizarre statement recently:

I am a cycle lane sceptic.

The transfer to two wheels clearly hasn’t solved many problems – bike lanes have led to increased congestion and pollution. Tarmac formerly used by vehicles is being underused by bikes and this could in turn cause greater congestion and pollution. The point is that while bikes may be an element of the solution to the congestion problem they’re not an answer on their own.

Make no mistake, congestion is incredibly closely related to pollution. Idling vehicles, stuck in traffic produce far more noxious outpourings than free-flowing ones.

I’m not against bikes and am supportive of the idea that using bikes can make a meaningful, albeit probably far from decisive, contribution.

Look at Cambridge – where around half of residents cycle at least once a week – these high rates of cycling have contributed to making it one of the most congested places in the country.

Those who treat drivers as an evil, diesel fume-belching demonic brotherhood, intent on choking our streets and our children’s lungs are up for criticism too. Why do that?

I really can’t decipher his argument there, can you? I think he’s trying to say that because cycle lanes aren’t being used as much as they could be, this is causing congestion elsewhere because that road surface could be used for cars, but it seems kind of a stupid rationalisation and like he’s almost grasping at straws. All seems rather irrational.

I can’t really see him bringing up any stats on the subject either. It’s been proven that cycling is better for the environment than driving cars.